https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302539 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Kyle Gospodnetich from comment #2) > Hi there, please keep in mind that this is not an "official" review as I am > not yet a packager. > > Overall this spec file looks very good to me, below is the output from the > `fedora-review` tool with a note in the "Issues" section. > > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > Issues: > ======= > - The license file should be explicitly included in %files with: > `%license LICENSE` Not that simple. It *should* but we have Python-related scripts which indentify licensing terms based on pyproject.toml files (and a few more corresponding ones). Try rpm -qpL ./packagename-ver.si.on.ARCHITECTURE.rpm - it is correctly detected and listed (the path is different tough) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2302539 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202302539%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
